Hi guys,

Thanks for your comments. A couple of rejoinders...

First, I'm not sure which of Craig's arguments you think have been conclusively debunked, but can I assure you that debate about the sorts cosmological and teleological arguments he commonly uses is alive and well in professional Philosophy departments and journals. Not debunked just yet!

Second, God would only be playing silly buggers if he was hiding completely. Moser's argument is not that God hides completely, but instead that God reveals in places that a scientific epistemology is incapable of fully engaging.

Cheers,

Richard

Hi Aga,

Right! There is plenty of evidence available in support of Christian belief. The question I am addressing is whether this evidence is "scientific". Clearly much of it is empirical. Nevertheless it is not conclusive by scientific standards. My argument is that this does not matter in terms of personal knowledge.

Richard

This article proves yet again that humans are standing in the road of their own evolution.

Many of them refuse to accept what their eyes and brain tell them, ie. that theo-babble is complete B.S., and prefer instead to believe in infantile fairy tales, mythical gods, angels, heaven, and living forever.

They refuse to accept that the very existence of hundreds of religions show clearly that they are all man-made and the people who run them use them to exploit the gullible.

When children are faced with the reality that there is no Santa many are disappointed but they manage to accept the truth. How come so many so-called adults can't give up on the religious crutch?

Craig is gonna be on Q&A as well! I'm so proud that the ABC has the conjones to put someone on the show who is, in all likelihood, going to dismantle their Worldview in profound ways.

Richard Shumack,

<<First, I'm not sure which of Craig's arguments you think have been conclusively debunked…>>

Well, I’m not aware of one that hasn’t been, if that helps you. You could start by Googling his five main arguments. There’s no shortage of sites to choose from; here’s some links from my favourite: -

The Kalam cosmological argument: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
The cosmological argument from contingency: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_Arguments
The moral argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_argument
The fine tuning argument: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument
The ontological argument : http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ontological_argument

<<…God would only be playing silly buggers if he was hiding completely.>>

Not according to Christian theology. I’ve covered this here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464

<<Moser's argument is not that God hides completely, but instead that God reveals in places that a scientific epistemology is incapable of fully engaging.>>

Why would he choose to do that? That’s not a pathway to truth, and anything that could qualify as a god would understand that.

Really David?

Not sure how the existence of religious diversity "clearly" shows them all to be false, but, in any case, my article refers to a live philosophical debate about both the philosophy of science and philosophy of religion. Perhaps that debate includes some using "theo-babble" but you really need to show how with arguments, not dismissals.

Cheers,

Richard